Why YSK?

The first person who typed “should of” probably heard of it in real life that was meant to be “should’ve”, they typed “should of” online and readers thought that it’s grammatically correct to say “should of” which is in fact wrong and it became widespread throughout the years on Reddit.

I hope something could start to change.

  • nieceandtows@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Crazy thing is, it’s getting widespread acceptance, and will probably accepted as grammatically correct in a few years.

    • Kabe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      A bit like how putting “would” in a third conditional if-clause has become standard in US English (“We wouldn’t have been late if we would have taken a taxi”).

      I know language evolves but it doesn’t stop my left eye from twitching whenever I hear it.

    • axtualdave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not until the definition of the word “of” changes. It is not a synonym for the word “have,” nor will be anytime soon.

      Perhaps, when speaking, accent, mush-mouthed laziness, or plain ignorance will confuse “should have” and “should of”, but one is objectively correct, and one is not.

      • raresbears@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not until the definition of the word “of” changes.

        Well that’s what’s happening here isn’t it. It’s a word that is potentially gaining an additional use as a result of reanalysis. Whether it sticks around long term remains to be seen, but language is defined by usage and it’s foolish to pretend there’s such a thing as objectively correct. Already the use of the verb ‘to have’ to form the perfect in this case is quite different from it’s other meanings related to ‘to possess’. And that’s not even getting into you describing nonstandard usage as the result of ‘mush-mouthed laziness’ which is a whole nother can of worms.

    • jadero@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the number of offenses I see in books and magazines, I’d say that the only thing left is for the descriptivist grammarians and lexicographers to record it.